[riverkid]

rewboss wrote:
As I have pointed out in a different thread, the problem here is that the terminology being used by various people is imprecise and thus open to misinterpretation.

If we are going to have any kind of debate whatsoever, we need to first agree on what the words we use actually mean.

So when you say we are trying to prove or disprove that "'might' is the past tense of 'may'", you have to clarify exactly what you mean by the term "past tense".

I think that many people in this debate are trying to use two different meanings of the term at the same time, and that is where the confusion comes in -- we're talking at cross-purposes with ourselves, let alone with each other.

In effect, you're trying to use both the popular definition -- that which tells you when an action takes place -- and the technical definition -- which describes the form of a verb -- at the same time, and this is doomed to failure.

If what you mean is that "might" (and other modals) rarely, if ever, refer to completed actions in the past, you are probably 100% correct. But if what you mean is that "might" is not the past tense form of "may", then you're actually making life a lot more complicated that it already is.

Good to see you here, Rewboss.

Again, I have to state that the overwhelming majority of people have little to no conception of the linguistic concept of tense. I have been arguing from the get go using the commonly accepted definition of tense.

Traditionally, that has also been the defintion of tense that has been used to describe 'might as the past tense of may', though I'll allow that some have tried to move the goalposts.


Rewboss: Consider this example you quoted, riverkid:
This is an example of what you call "backshifting". You correctly state that the presence of "was" does not indicate that he actually went to Tokyo. However, what it does indicate is that the state described as "is going to Tokyo" is now in the past -- compare with:

The expression of it is in the past, duly noted by the reporting verb being put in a past tense, the common meaning intended. Let me suggest that you're unnecessarily complicating things and digging yourself a hole that may be difficult to climb out of.

What do you say of the direct quote? And of the direct quote wherein the speaker keeps the reporting verb in the present tense form? Do these also indicate that "it ... is that the state described as "is going to Tokyo" is now in the past".

The use of the present tense -- even in reported speech -- indicates that the plan is still current, and if you ask him now he will confirm that yes, he is due to go to Tokyo.
Things do get a little more complicated when modal verbs are concerned, because modal verbs indicate possibility, permission, obligation and related concepts.

I don't understand what's so complicated about, "I may go to Tokyo". It's an 25-50% modification of, "I will go to Tokyo". For the first one, 'might' serves as the reporting modal and for the second, 'would' serves that function IF we choose to "report".


But consider:
"I have made a cake."
He said he had made a cake.
Pretty simple transformation: we have taken a present tense and made it a past tense.

"we have taken a present tense and made it a past tense FORM. And why have you done this? One reason and one reason only; the FORM alerts the listener that it is reported speech. It doesn't suggest to the listener that the cake has been made, does it, RB?



Now consider this parallel example:
"I may make a cake."
He said he might make a cake.
Now, you may object and say that it's possible to say, "He said he may make a cake," but I would then point out that it's equally possible to say, "He said he has made a cake." The difference is that "has" is definite -- we believe him -- while "had" is not so confident -- we are distancing ourselves from this claim.

I'm sorry but you've lost me, RB. It is not equally possible to materially change the meaning of what someone says and expect it to be equal in meaning.

He said he might make a cake. = "He said he may make a cake,"

but neither of them are equal to,

"He said he has made a cake."



And it is this which, in reported speech, past tense forms are used to indicate: "I'm not saying this is true, this is just what was said."
If you really want to make life horribly complicated for people trying to come to terms with English grammar, you could invent a raft of tenses and moods to cover all eventualities and invent grand-sounding names for them.

I'm not suggesting such a plan at all, RB. Calling modals tenseless accurately describes how they operate in modern English.

But a past tense form is just that -- a verb's form. It says nothing about the function of that form, it just describes the form. Thus, in a sentence like, "The train arrives in fifty minutes," the verb is in the present tense, but it describes an event that is timetabled for the future.
In modern English, past tense forms may indicate actions completed in the past, or they may indicate the hypothetical nature of an action. Past tense forms of modal verbs indicate permissions, possibilities and obligations that existed in the past (which is not usually useful), or permissions, possibilities and obligations which are hypothetical, or less likely, in general.


Note that the whole way through you've described these as {___} verb FORMS. I have no problem with that. For the modals, it's completely accurate to describes them as "Historical past tenses".

This is fortunate, because it makes describing things like the transformation of direct speech into indirect speech a lot less complex. The rule is, if you're not 100% sure that the speaker is telling the truth, look for the inflected verb. If it is a present tense form, change it to the past tense form. Watch:
"I play football."
He said he played football. (play -> play)
"I am going on Friday."
She said she was going on Friday. (is -> was)
"I have been waiting since 4 o'clock."
He said he had been waiting since 4 o'clock. (have -> had)
"I will be there."
She said she would be there. (will -> would)
"I may have made a mistake."
He said he might have made a mistake. (may -> might)
See how neat this is? See how elegant? True, it's a lot more subtle than that in some cases, but it's a lot easier to teach that way. All you need to do is to separate form from function, and remember the golden rule:


"Past tense" does not describe when an action takes place -- it describes what a verb looks like; how it is used is a completely different question.

Admittedly, there has been some impreciseness when using terminlogy and I suspect I haven't been as careful as I should be but, RB, here now you say; ""Past tense" does not describe when an action takes place", when clearly it does.

"Past tense FORM" does not describe when an action takes place".

All this is well and good but it still doesn't mean that this special set of verbs, the modals, has tense. For years, decades, probably centuries, reported speech has been erroneously described as using past tense with the commonly accepted idea of past action.

That has been the sole proof that modals have tense. Now look to the other side, actual usage. Modals operate in all tense/time situations. Save for a few situations that remain from earlier periods of the language, modals carry emotive meaning into sentences but other structures are responsible for carrying tense/time.